Despite recent issues with the Chevrolet Volt's battery, GM expects increased Volt sales for November and a recent survey found that Volt customers are satisfied. A GOP lawmaker may, however, ruin EV success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit

General Motors Co. may have hit a few speed bumps this year with the Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV's battery-related incidents, but things seem to be looking up with an expected increase in November Volt sales and a recent survey that confirmed Volt customer satisfaction.

The Chevrolet Volt had its best-ever sales month in October 2011, but according to GM Spokesman Jim Cain, November Volt sales are expected to surpass the previous month.

In October, GM sold 1,108 Volts, which was the first time it had outsold the Nissan Leaf EV since April. For the year through October, GM sold a total of 5,003 Volts.

Experts say that it is now very unlikely that GM will meet its sales goal of 10,000 Volts sold in 2011, but GM predicts increased sales in November over the month of October. The final sales figures for November have not yet been released.

Perhaps the reason for increased sales expectations is Volt customer satisfaction. According to a recent survey by Consumer Reports, Chevrolet Volt owners "love their cars."

The Consumer Reports survey, which was released Thursday, is based on over 314,000 opinions of 2009-2012 model year vehicles. The survey found that 93 percent of Volt owners who participated said they'd buy the EV again.

However, the survey was conducted only a few months after the Volt hit showrooms, and mainly consisted of early buyers and enthusiasts. The survey was also taken before the formal investigation of Volt/lithium battery safety began.

Earlier this year, the Volt underwent a series of tests at a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) facility in Wisconsin. Three weeks after a side-impact crash test on May 12, the Volt went up in flames while parked at the facility, catching nearby vehicles on fire.

This sparked a NHTSA investigation, where three more Volts were tested November 16, 17 and 18. One battery had normal results while another emitted sparks and smoke, and the third caught on fire one week later. The NHTSA is now conducting a formal investigation of the vehicle's safety.

The Volt may be seeing the upside of a nasty situation for now with a potential sales increase and customer satisfaction, but one GOP lawmaker is looking to throw a wrench in the EV industry's success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) told Congress Wednesday that he wants the $7,500 tax credit for EVs to cease because he says electric vehicles have not met desired goals and the tax credit only benefits the wealthy. He specifically noted that the annual income of Volt owners is $175,000.

"[The Volt] has become the poster child of President Obama's failed green agenda," said Kelly. "Like many green initiatives promoted by this administration and bankrolled by the American taxpayer, the electric car is better in theory than in practice; has limited consumer demand; is heavily subsidized; and has fallen short of reaching targeted goals. Despite the fact that the federal government has no business subsidizing a product that a manufacturer could just as easily promote through rebates and other buyer incentives, the tax subsidies are largely going to the affluent few who can actually afford to buy an electric car, which costs anywhere between $40,000 and $97,000."

Kelly's "like many other green initiatives promoted by this administration" comment was more than likely referring to this year's Solyndra disaster, where the U.S. government loaned solar panel company Solyndra $535 million in 2009 despite warnings that the company would go bankrupt. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy on September 6, 2011.

There are some self proclaimed know-it-alls here that try to force you into their B&W world. They have yet to succeed with a single person.

For the purposes of proving the rich pay too much everything except fed income tax is dismissed. For the purposes of Joe Average the method may include things like SS and gas taxes, which don't amount to much for a billionaire. Then of course besides beer and cigarettes the lottery is considered a "tax on the poor" by some, usually those complaining about taxes the loudest. Do we ever see a graph of all the taxes imposed no? No, not because it's not worthy, but because it undermines the rich argument.

Ask any person in Greece, rich or poor, and they will all tell you the country has been pillaged by politicians for decades. And are politicians poor? Sorry they fall into the rich category, no big surprise there.

In this state seniors below a certain (very low) income no longer pay school taxes. Apparently driving them into poverty (and into nursing homes once broke where everybody but the elderly pick up the tab) or forcing them to move away is viewed as a bad thing. Damn those progressives!

I whine about taxes as much as the next guy. Are my taxes to high? Yes, but not for the reason most people would think.

I think that I could probably stomach more taxes if the people who were spending it were not such bozos. Conservative or Progressive, they are all bozos. If they knew what they were doing, instead of just throwing money at everything, I could be convinced that higher taxes were OK.

While I don't think that the most wealthy in the world would really be hurt by a tax increase, I don't want it to become a habit that when the bozos come up short, they just increase taxes. Eventually the definition of "Rich" gets to the point of including people like you and me.

And it's each party's goal to convince their sheeple of everything but this fact. And many fall for the propaganda, cause they like it. As Jesse Ventura said, the US is a 2 party dictatorship. And too many bozos are still riding the bus.

quote: I think that I could probably stomach more taxes if the people who were spending it were not such bozos.

That's the very reason so much of Europe tolerated it for so long, frankly they always got more for their money than we ever did. and wanting to stay informed versus ignoring what's going on is one of the reasons that happened over there. Of course there are situations beyond one's control. They 1967 Greek revolution brought in a junta that turned out and sold all the military gear Greece had and then disappeared.

quote: Eventually the definition of "Rich" gets to the point of including people like you and me.

An excellent example of that would be the AMT. It was developed and implemented in its day for all the right reasons, but it wasn't adjusted for inflation. Why is that? You'd have to ask them.

Anyway if you live in an area with $300,000 home that's average there, and have been investing since IRAs and 401Ks have been out with a decent salary you can be a millionaire on paper without being "rich." Well off, but not so comfortable you never worry about anything again. I don't think a lot of people get that. I'm nowhere near that, but people who live in higher cost areas may have this scenario as quite common.

It seems people whine more today than decades ago when rates were higher. It's a national past time, the way Europeans drink coffee. I tell people I wish I was paying half a million a year in taxes, because I'd definitely could get by on what's left. The emphasis on this statement is not on wanting to pay taxes(the way Murdoch would twist it around), but to have the ability to pay it, ie a big salary.

You should really take a closer look at the spending. The bozo spending really only accounts for a small fraction. Add up all the controversial things like the EV credit, Solyndra loan, etc and you get almost nothing. They're just talking points that are successful because the general populace has no sense of scale. Million, billion, and trillion really mean nothing to them.

The majority of federal spending is either in direct transfers (SS/welfare/unemployment), Medicare that is already paying less than free market, or military spending that the US public supports so much that it would be political suicide to cut.

The federal gov't payroll is ~$180B out of total spending of $3729B. If you think that 5% is too much and cut public workers, you get job losses because the private sector can't find work for 13M people right now, so few of them would get jobs elsewhere. The newly unemployed's reduced consumption then creates even more job losses.

We need higher taxes now, as we're stealing from future generations. Deal with the reality of insufficient revenues today, and stop the pipe dream of a magical economic boom solving all our problems. If we decide to cut military spending or, god forbid, make the poor even poorer, then we can consider bringing taxes back down a bit.